HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090133 Ver 7_Year 3 Stream and Vegetation_20181228Stream and Vegetation Monitoring
Year 3 Report
UT to Stirrup Iron Creek / December 2018 / RAP -12020
'l
WADAMS
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................2
1.1 Project Location and Description......................................................................................................2
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................2
2.0 Channel Stability Assessment.................................................................................................................2
2.1 Visual Assessment Summary............................................................................................................3
3.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison...................................................................................................4
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots.............................................................................................................4
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Sheets.......................................................................4
4.0 References..............................................................................................................................................5
Appendix A: Site Maps
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Conservation Easement Map
Appendix B: Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 1: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 2: Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegetation Plot
Table 3: Planted Species Comparison by Vegetation Plot
Appendix C: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
creating experiences through experience 2905 Meridian Parkway, Durham, NC 27713 / 919. 361. 5000
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Location and Description
The UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration project (Stream Restoration project) is on the site of the Creekside
at Bethpage residential development in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina (Appendix A, Figure 1). The
project is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the intersection of Page Road and Chin Page Road. The
constructed Stream Restoration project is part of the compensatory mitigation plan to offset stream and wetland
impacts associated with the Creekside at Bethpage project. The Conservation Easement (CE) for the Stream
Restoration project is 2.89 acres in size and is located within the west central portion of the overall project. The
Stream Restoration project flows west and southwest and ties back in to another UT to Stirrup Iron Creek
(Appendix A, Sheet No. 1-1). The restored stream length is 1,958 linear feet. The Stream Restoration project is
approximately 0.25 miles from the proposed stream impacts associated with the Creekside at Bethpage residential
development.
The Stream Restoration project is located within the Neuse River Basin USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201, local
watershed 14 -digit basin 03020201080010 and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) sub -basin
03-04-02. The unnamed tributary flows into Stirrup Iron Creek (DWR stream index number 27-33-4-2)
approximately 1.0 mile downstream of the project terminus.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The purpose of this Stream and Vegetation Monitoring Year 3 Report is to assess the success of the Stream
Restoration project. The monitoring plan evaluates the success of the Site and is based on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) "Stream Mitigation Guidelines" (April, 2013) and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP) Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation
(November, 2011). Monitoring of the Site will occur annually for five (5) years.
Construction of the Stream Restoration project occurred in the fall of 2015. During the month of November 2015,
riparian buffer restoration activities began following construction of the restored active stream channel. Riparian
buffer restoration activities included planting trees and staking vegetation plots within the CE. Baseline vegetation
sampling was conducted on February 18, 2016.
According to the Restoration Plan for the Stream Restoration project (issued July 2009), project specific goals and
objectives related to vegetative assemblages within the stream restoration project were the following:
> Ensure channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating native vegetation into the restoration
design while also creating a stable and functional aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
> Establish a native forested riparian plant community within a minimum of 50 feet from the
proposed top of the bankfull channel, remove exotic vegetation during construction implementation
and eliminate embankment maintenance practices.
2.0 Channel Stability Assessment
Stream geometry will be considered successful if the geometry, profile and sinuosity are stable or reach a dynamic
equilibrium. It is expected that there will be minimal changes in the designed cross sections, profile and substrate
composition. Changes that may occur during the monitoring period will be evaluated to determine if they
represent a movement toward a less stable condition (e.g. down cutting, or bank erosion) or are minor changes
that represent an increase in stability (e.g. settling, vegetative changes, coarsening of bed material, etc.). Deviation
creating experiences through experience 2 of 5
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
from the design ratios will not necessarily denote failure as it is possible to maintain stability and not stay within
the design geometry.
Channel stability will be reflected in the surveyed permanent cross-sections, longitudinal profile, evaluation of
bank stability and cover and evaluation of in -stream structure performance compared to the as -built and any
previously collected monitoring data. The general trend should reflect a stable or slightly decreasing riffle cross-
sectional area, whereas pools may increase and yet be considered relatively stable. The longitudinal profile will
typically adjust depending on the frequency of bankfull or greater storm events. Typically, the constructed channel
profile will adjust (especially in a sand dominated bed), but it will need to function without significant degradation
(bed scour), aggradation (mid -channel bars), or bank erosion.
The Bank Height Ratio (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 and the Entrenchment Ratio shall be no less than 2.2. The stream
shall remain stable over five years and through two bankfull events, as indicated by visual surveys and monitoring
of cross-sections and bank pins.
2.1 Visual Assessment Summary
A visual assessment of the stream channel condition and stability was conducted by McAdams staff on September
25, 2018. Several areas of erosion and bank instability were noted in Monitoring Year 3. Moderate bank erosion
and channel downcutting were observed throughout much of the reach. In general, the rock structures are
performing well and remain stable. However, there is significant bank erosion at several of the log structures and
on the outsides of some of the bends. In several cases, bank pins are exposed by a foot or more and the right bank
near Vegetation Plot 3 has eroded to the extent that the end of a log vane is exposed and water is flowing around
it. The observed bank erosion is evidence of lateral instability. A longitudinal profile will be surveyed to determine
whether vertical instability is also an issue. While some lateral and vertical movement is expected, areas of
observed instability in Monitoring Year 3 should be monitored and remedial actions may be necessary if the
condition becomes severe.
During Year 1 monitoring activities, excessive sediment loads were observed from the contributing watershed,
likely from the construction activities associated with the Bethpage development. During Monitoring Year 3
activities, it was noted that the observed sediment load from the contributing watershed continues to pose a
threat to water quality within and downstream of the restoration reach.
In Monitoring Year 2, potential stability issues related to the outfall of a stormwater pond that was installed at the
Bethpage site adjacent to the CE north of Vegetation Plot 3 were documented. During Year 2 monitoring activities,
water with high levels of suspended sediment was observed discharging from this pond adjacent to the CE and
pooling on the floodplain within the CE. In Monitoring Year 3 the water flowing out of the pond outlet was
observed to have caused a small channel to form below the pond outlet. It is recommended that the outlet of the
stormwater pond near Vegetation Plot 3 be evaluated for compliance with applicable stormwater regulations and
that the area be monitored periodically to ensure that further stability issues do not develop in this area.
Additionally, it is recommended that the Duke Power easement crossing, which was repaired in November 2016,
continue be monitored for stability and that the sediment and erosion control measures on the Creekside at
Bethpage construction site be monitored regularly to ensure that they remain in compliance with City of Durham
regulations.
Due to the potential channel and bank stability concerns observed during Year 3 monitoring, the cross sections
and a longitudinal profile of the stream channel will be surveyed in early 2019 as part of the Year 3 monitoring
activities. The cross section and longitudinal profile survey results will be submitted as soon as they can be
completed. A stormwater and conservation easement compliance assessment focusing on the area of erosion
creating experiences through experience 3 of 5
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
near the stormwater pond north of Vegetation Plot 3 will also be conducted at this time. The purpose of the
assessment will be to determine whether compliance issues are contributing to the erosion problem in this area
and to determine whether remedial action is required.
3.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison
The primary focus of the vegetative monitoring will be solely on the tree stratum, although shrub and herbaceous
species encountered may also be recorded. Vegetation planting success criteria will be based on the survival of a
minimum density of 320 trees per acre (to include both planted and existing trees) after three (3) years of
monitoring. After five (5) years of monitoring, the density shall be no less than 260 trees per acre (to include both
planted and existing trees). Vegetation plots will be sampled and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Four (4) vegetative monitoring plots (Appendix A, Figure 2) were installed during As -Built monitoring. The
vegetation monitoring plots were installed randomly throughout the Stream Restoration project. Because many
canopy trees within the easement were preserved during construction, the planted area is largely limited to
narrow areas along the stream banks. This limited planting area made it difficult to establish 100 -square -meter
vegetation plots; thus, the plots vary in size from 31.0 to 96.5 square meters. All four (4) corners of the vegetation
monitoring plots were permanently installed and surveyed. Baseline vegetation monitoring was conducted in
general accordance with CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, v4.2) as a basis for subsequent
vegetation monitoring activities and reports.
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Monitoring Year 3 field activities were conducted September 25, 2018. Monitoring methodologies followed the
most current templates and guidelines provided by EEP (EEP 2004; EEP 2011). All four (4) vegetation monitoring
plots installed by McAdams were located in Monitoring Year 3. Figure 2 (Appendix A) depicts the location of the
vegetation monitoring plots. Plant species, density, survival rates and the cause of mortality, if identifiable, were
recorded within each vegetation monitoring plot. Table 1 (Appendix B) provides a success summary for each
vegetation monitoring plot. In Monitoring Year 3, the Stream Restoration project had four (4) vegetation
monitoring plots encompassing 0.07 acres, containing 51 planted stems, which yielded a density of 729 planted
stems per acre. All four (4) vegetation monitoring plots met the interim vegetation monitoring criteria with a range
of 410 to 1,123 stems per acre. Table 2 (Appendix B) provides a stem count total and planted stem total by each
individual vegetation plot. Table 3 (Appendix B) provides a summary of only planted stem counts as compared to
planted stem counts of the As -Built.
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Sheets
Photographs of the vegetation monitoring plots are provided in Appendix C. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
Sheets are provided in Appendix D. Each Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheet provides measurements, location,
and vigor of each planted species within a respective vegetation monitoring plot.
creating experiences through experience 4 of 5
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
4.0 References
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Level. Version 4.2.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) 2004. Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration. Available
at internet site: https://erp.unc.edu/files/2014/12/buffer-restoration.pdf.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) November 7, 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation.
Schafale MP and AS Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. July 2016. As -Built Monitoring Report, UT to Stirrup Iron Creek.
US Army Corps of Engineers April, 2013. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
creating experiences through experience 5 of 5
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
APPENDIX A
Site Maps
creating experiences through experience
.r +
J\a 1 �•;! tl J
i
�s'` _ � � " t, sem_ � •.r .; � i• � / }
BETHP AGE
DEVELOPMEN r` 1. _ r v
---�y f- 1
LEI 7.k r' i +� f� _ C� : • - ,-� .L. �f' •�`�
1 . � � � `� ` • 4 � R. J��` -� ; ,moi � �
fgTXFZT
._ �m 4Y � _.�• - c�,'f� % , '-fit - n �',
.
sY ?8M ? J
Ar / l d
..� i.
USGS - SOUTH EAST DURHAM QUAD
LAT / LONG LOCATION: 35.9024310° N 178.8318007' W
CHIN
nu
AIRPORT
VICINITY MAP
NTS
Ve
PRaecr No. CPR -08000
VICINITY MAP
EcoEngineering
FILENAME. CPRO800OX�j
(�g
T�TT R �jA
I RE I
division of1La John R McAdams Compacry, Fmc.1
SCAi,E: 1 ^ a 2,000•
V
UT to STIRRUP IRON CREEK
RESEARCH TR[ANGLE PARK, NC
P.O. Box «0052[P 27709 4005
°AT9: 7--9-2009
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
(919) 88i-5000
USGS - SOUTH EAST DURHAM QUAD
LAT / LONG LOCATION: 35.9024310° N 178.8318007' W
CHIN
nu
AIRPORT
VICINITY MAP
NTS
PRaecr No. CPR -08000
VICINITY MAP
EcoEngineering
FILENAME. CPRO800OX�j
(�g
T�TT R �jA
I RE I
division of1La John R McAdams Compacry, Fmc.1
SCAi,E: 1 ^ a 2,000•
V
UT to STIRRUP IRON CREEK
RESEARCH TR[ANGLE PARK, NC
P.O. Box «0052[P 27709 4005
°AT9: 7--9-2009
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
(919) 88i-5000
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
re1»40111kyll
Vegetation Assessment Data
creating experiences through experience
Table 1. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
VEGETATION MONITORING YEAR 3: September 25, 2018
McAdams Project #: RAP -12020
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Threshold Met?*
Tract Mean
1 Yes
100%
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 Yes
*Tree survival should consist of at least 320 trees per acre (including both planted and existing trees) for the
first 3 years after construction and at least 260 trees per acre after 5 years, according to the "UT to Stirrup Iron
Creek Stream and Vegetation Monitoring Plan" (June 2018).
Table 2. Planted Stem Count Total by Vegation Plot
UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
VEGETATION MONITORING YEAR 3: September 25, 2018
McAdams Project #: RAP -12020
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY3
ANNUAL TOTALS
VP -1 I VP -2 VP -3 I VP -4 JMY3 (SEPT 2018) MY2 (DEC 2017) 1 MY1 (OCT 2016) AS -BUILT (FEB 2016
Planted Stems
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
tree
0
0
2
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis button bush
shrub
3
1
5
9
0
0
0
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
tree
3
7
10
9
12
9
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar
tree
14
2
16
5
9
26
Myrica cerifera wax myrtle
shrub
2
1
3
4
3
7
Nyssa bii lora swamp tupelo
tree
0
1
2
2
Persea palustris swamp bay
small tree
1
1
6
5
11
Platanus occidentalis sycamore
tree
1
1
0
0
0
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
tree
0
1
2
34
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
tree
1
1
2
0
0
1
Quercus nigra water oak
tree
2
1
2
3
3
0
Quercus phellos willow oak
tree
1
1
2
0
0
Quercus sp. oak species
tree
3
1
1
5
9
0
0
Ulmus americana American elm
tree
1
1
6
6
20
Vaccinium corymbosum blueberry
shrub
0
0
1
8
Stem Count Total
24
15
5
1 7
51
46
47
121
Size of Vegetation Plot (Acres)
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Number of Different Species
7
5
4
3
11
10
10
10
Stems Per Acre
1123
629
653
410
729
658
672
1730
Total CE Area = 2.89 acres
Table 3. Planted Species Mortality by Vegation Plot
UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
VEGETATION MONITORING YEAR 3: September 25, 2018
McAdams Project #: RAP -12020
Note: Reductions in the number of planted stems are due to species which were deemed "missing" or "dead" at the time of
monitoring. One possible explanation for "missing" species is due to thick herbaceous growth obscurring the species from
identification. Increases in the number of planted stems may be due to stems that were previously noted as "missing" but
are found in subsequent monitoring years, survival of stems which were previously deemed "dead" but were dormant at the
time of monitoring and put out new growth in the current monitoring year or the addition of newly identified volunteer stems.
VP -1
VP -2
VP -3
VP -4
Monitoring Year 3 Planted Stem Count Total
24
15
5
7
Monitoring Year 2 Planted Stem Count Total
15
14
7
10
Planted Stem Difference from MY2
9
1
-2
-3
Mortality Rate (%)
-60%
-7%
29%
30%
Note: Reductions in the number of planted stems are due to species which were deemed "missing" or "dead" at the time of
monitoring. One possible explanation for "missing" species is due to thick herbaceous growth obscurring the species from
identification. Increases in the number of planted stems may be due to stems that were previously noted as "missing" but
are found in subsequent monitoring years, survival of stems which were previously deemed "dead" but were dormant at the
time of monitoring and put out new growth in the current monitoring year or the addition of newly identified volunteer stems.
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
APPENDIX C
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
creating experiences through experience
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
Vegetation Plot 3: View facing 250°W
Vegetation Plot 4: View facing 30°N
creating experiences through experience 2 of 2
'J MCADAMS UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK > MONITORING YEAR 3 REPORT
lel» 4►111 EIvf .
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
creating experiences through experience
Site: Bethpage
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY3
Date: 9/25/2018
Area: 9.2 x 9.4
Veg Plot No.: 1
X-axis:
Plot Location:
120°ECURRENT
see sketch below
X
Y
ddh
YEAR DATA
Height DBH
Map ID Scientific Name
Source meter meter
mm
cm
cm
Vigor
Notes
1 Quercus s.
B 1.8
1.2
5
45
3
2 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 3.1
1.1
130
0.5
3
3 Liriodendron tuli ifera*
B 7.3
0.8
12
114
3
4 Ulmus americana
B 8.6
0.7
Missing
5 Liriodendron tuli ifera*
B 1 8.2
1.61
7
77
3
61 Quercus sp.
B 6.1
2.1
Missing
7 Fraxinus enns Ivanica*
B 6.9
1.7
14
118
3
8 Quercus sp.
B 3.3
2.9
Missing
9 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 4.1
3.5
6
56
3
10 Vaccinium cor mbosom
B 1.8
2.8
Missin
11 Liriodendron tuli ifera*
B 0.3
2.8
5
52
3
12 Quercus sp.
B 1.5
4.3
Missing
13 Quercus sp.
B 4.5
4.5
Dead
14 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B 7.8
4.4
Missing
15 Ulmus americana
B 8.7
4.0
Missing
16 Liriodendron tuli ifera*
B 8.3
5.7
10
104
3
17 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 7.3
6.0
127
0.5
3
18 Liriodendron tuli ifera*
B 7.1
7.1
Missing
19 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 7.1
7.11
11
105
3
20 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B 6.6
6.8
129
0.5
3
21 Quercus sp.
B 6.6
7.7
Missing
22 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 4.7
6.1
12
114
3
23 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 3.3
6.7
7
73
3
24 Quercus phellos
B 3.6
6.0
4
44
3 Res rout
25 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 2.5
5.0
6
77
3
26 Quercus sp.
B 1.6
4.41
Missing
27 Ulmus americana
B 0.1
5.8
Missing
28 Quercus sp.
B 0.1
7.4
Missing
29 Liriodendron tuli ifera*
B 1.7
9.1
6
79
3
30 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B 2.4
7.6
5
50
3
31 Quercus sp.
B 2.8
8.4
8
60
3
32 Quercus sp.
B 4.3
8.4
7
60
2 Die back
33 Quercus michauxii*
B 5.1
9.4
7
22
3 Die back
34 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 6.5
9.3
6
51
3
351 Platanus occidentalis*
B 6.5
7.8
5
87
3
361 Ulmus americana*
B 7.8
8.2
8
91
3
37 1 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 7.9
8.4
71
85
3
B = bare root *Species identified differently in MY3 than in MY2
C= containerized
Volunteer Species Height Class cm
Scientific Name
10-50 50-100 >100
Li uidambar st raciflua
2
Liriodendron tuli ifera
10 20
Platanus occidentalis
2 2
Rhus co allinum
2
Cornus sip.
1
Tree line
Y (0, 9.4)
(0,0) X (9.2, 0)
Tree line
Site:
Bethpage
Page:
2
Monitoring Year:
MY3
Date:
9/25/2018
Area:
9.2 x 9.4
Veg Plot No.:
1
X-axis:
1201E
A
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 i
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
O Fraxinus pennsylvanica O Liriodendron tulipifera O Platanus occidentalis 0 Quercus michauxii 0 Quercus phellos
0 Quercus sp. 0 Ulmus americana 0 Vaccinium corymbosom 0 Missing x Dead
33
34
-------------------
-------
-- -------
-------- -------
----------------
------------
36
--------------
--
D--4 - - - - - - - -
8
- - - - - - - - - : --------
- - - - -0------ - -
- - - - - - - - ------- -
--------- - - - - - -
--------- - - - - - -
------ - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - --------
- -
----------------
--------
------- t -----------
0- ----------------
----------------
-------
-------- --------
-------- --------
------- -----------
----------------
----------------
9
----------------
217
----------------
-------
--------
--------
16
----------
--
-------
----
-0 --------------
-
-----------------------------
--------
14
--------
--
-------------
25
------- ------------
15
----------------
--------------------
------------
-------
-------
-------- -------
-------- --------
-------- --------
------- --------
--
11
--------------10
-------- -----------
-
- ------
--------------
------- --------
--
66
----------------
----------------
------------------------
-----------------
------------
71
C
........ ........
. 0
102-
----------------
----------------
----------------------------------
I ----------------
-------
-------- --------
-------- --------
------ ------
0.0 i
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
O Fraxinus pennsylvanica O Liriodendron tulipifera O Platanus occidentalis 0 Quercus michauxii 0 Quercus phellos
0 Quercus sp. 0 Ulmus americana 0 Vaccinium corymbosom 0 Missing x Dead
Site: Bethpage
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY3
Date: 9/25/2018
Area: 20.1 x 4.8
Veg Plot No.: 2
X-axis:
Plot Location:
345°N
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X I Y
Source meter meter
ddh
mm
CURRENT YEAR DATA
Height DBH
cm cm Vigor Notes
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.9
0.1
9
83
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.6
1.6
9
50
3
3 Cephalanthus occidentalis*
B
0.9
3.0
6
78
3
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.8
3.7
10
80
3
5 Quercus nigra*
B
1.4
4.41
5
46
3
61 Ulmus americana
B
1.41
1.31
Dead
7 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
4.3
0.5
6
46
3
8 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
3.5
1.2
Missing
9 Quercus nigra
B
3.7
2.7
Missing
10 Quercus nigra
B
4.3
2.1
5
60
3
11 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
5.7
0.8
7
47
3
12 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
6.0
1.3
Dead
13 Quercus sp.
B
6.2
3.0
Dead
14 Quercus sp.
B
7.3
4.6
Dead
15 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
8.1
0.7
5
41
3
16 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.0
1.9
Missing
17 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.4
2.6
Missing
18 Cephalanthus occidentalis*
B
8.8
4.8
230
1.3
3
19 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.91
0.4
Missing
20 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
10.8
0.9
11
82
3
21 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
10.2
2.5
Dead
22 Vaccinium corymbosum
B
10.8
4.5
Missing
23 Ulmus americana
B
12.6
4.1
Missing
24 Liriodendron tulipifera*
B
13.0
2.61
5
51
3 Deer
25 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
13.0
0.7
161
0.9
3
26 Cephalanthus occidentalis*
B
14.4
3.1
245
1.5
3
27 Quercus sp.
B
17.2
2.51
7
651
3
281 Ulmus americana
B
18.3
3.71
1
Missing
B = bare root *Species identified differently in MY3 than in MY2
C= containerized
SS
Y (0, 4.8) 4.8)
(0,0) X (20.1,0)
Volunteer Species
Height Class (cm)
Scientific Name
10-50 50-100 >100
Salix nigra
2
Platanus occidentalis
1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera
10 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1
Site: Bethpage
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY3
Date: 9/25/2018
Area: 20.1 x 4.8
Veg Plot No.: 2
X-axis: 3451N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - I - - - - - - --- - TIT, - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - r ---- - ----------
3 ---------a3
:G
I -----------
----
----- ---- ---- -- ---- I ------
---- ----------
----
------ I ----
---- I ------
---- I -----
------ I ----
---- I ------
----
-------------------------
-
(,J) -- ----
c
---------
----------
----
----- -----
----- ----------
----
---------
----------
----
-----
10�
-
--
----------------
----- F ----
---- ------ ----------
----- F ----
-----------
-
-
015
-----
----- ---- ----
4-
5
----- --
----------
---- ---
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0 Cephalanthus occidentalis 0 Fraxinus pennsylvanka 0 Liriodendron tulipifera 0 Quercus nigra 0 Quercus sp. 0 Ulmus americana 0 Vaccinium corymbosum 0 Missing x Dead
Site: Bethpage
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY3
Date: 9/25/2018
Area: 15.5 x 2.0
Veg Plot No.: 3
X-axis:
Plot Location:
250°WCURRENT
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y
Source meter meter
ddh
mm
YEAR DATA
Height DBH
cm cm Vigor Notes
1 Ulmus americana
B 0.4
1.7
Missing
2 Cephalanthus occidentalis*
B 1.5
0.5
7
83
3
3 Persea palustris
B 2.0
0.9
Missing
4 Myrica cerifera
B 2.5
0.7
11
121
3
5 Vaccinium corymbosum
B 2.91
1.51
1
Missing
61 Liriodendron tulipifera
B 3.2
1.1
Missing
7 Quercus michauxii*
B 4.5
0.5
3
27
3
8 Myrica cerifera
B 5.7
1.3
Missing
9 Liriodendron tulipifera
B 5.7
1.1
Missing
10 Vaccinium corymbosum
B 6.3
1.6
Missing
11 Persea palustris
B 7.0
1.4
Missing
12 Liriodendron tulipifera
B 8.01
0.71
1
lMissing
131 Quercus laurifolia*
B 9.3
1.1
Missing
14 Quercus sp.*
B 9.5
0.9
7
51
3
15 Persea palustris
B 9.6
0.9
Missing
16 Ulmus americana
B 10.1
0.8
Missing
17 Myrica cerifera
B 12.6
1.8
137
0.3 3
18 Liriodendron tulipifera
IB 1 12.3
0.6
Missing
19 Persea palustris
I B 13.31
1.91
1Missin
20 Liriodendron tulipifera
IB 14.41
1.51
Imissing
211 Quercus sp.
IB 1 15.41
1.91
1
1
IMissing
0)
B = bare root *Species identified differently in MY2 than during As -built and/or MY1 monitoring
C= containerized
Stream
■
■
■
■
(0,0) X (15.5, 0).
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Tree line
*Water from SCM outlet pipe is sediment laden.
Volunteer Species Height Class cm
Scientific Name 10-50
150-1001
>100
Liriodendron tulipifera 1 21
1
Site: Bethpage
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY3
Date: 9/25/2018
Area: 15.5 x 2.0
Veg Plot No.: 3
X-axis: 250OW
250'W
----------
-----------
----- --- ------
----- -----
9
10
----------------------------
-----------
-------------------------
0
-----
19:
UU9.
--
----------
----------
0 ---
---0
I- -----
------ -------- ------w
1-----v----
--
----G
—-
------------------
----------
0-:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
• Cepholanthus occidentalis 0 Liriodendron tulipifera 0 Myrica cerifera
0 Quercus lourifolia
0 Quercus michauxii 0 Quercus sp.
• Vaccinium corymbosum 0 Missing
0 Quercus sp.
0 Persea palustris
0 Ulmus americana
250'W
Site: Bethpage
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY3
Date: 9/25/2018
Area: 19.2 x 3.6
Veg Plot No.: 4
X-axis:
Plot Location:
30°NCURRENT
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y
Source meter meter
YEAR DATA
ddh Height DBH
mm cm cm Vigor Notes
1 N ssa biflora
B 0.2
1.5
Missing
2 Persea palustris
B 0.5
1.7
Missing
3 Quercus laurifolia
B 0.4
2.2
Missing
4 Quercus sp.
B 1.1
1.6
Missing
5 N ssa biflora
B 2.11
1.11
1
Missing
61 Cephalanthus occidentalis
B 2.8
1.5
171
0.6 3
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B 2.8
2.2
Missing
8 Persea palustris
B 3.4
2.3
6 76
3
9 Ulmus americana
B 3.8
1.7
Missing
10 Myrica cerifera
B 4.7
2.6
165
0.4 3
11 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 6.5
2.0
Missing
12 Carpinus caroliniana
B 6.71
1.51
Missing
131 Cephalanthus occidentalis"
B 6.7
0.3
300
1.9 3
14 Carpinus caroliniana
B 7.5
1.0
Missing
15 Persea palustris
B 6.9
2.6
Missing
16 Myrica cerifera
B 7.7
3.0
Missing
17 Cephalanthus occidentalis"
B 8.2
2.4
320
1.4 3
18 Vaccinium corymbosum
B 7.9
2.1
Missing
19 Quercus sp.
B 8.41
1.51
Missing
201 Carpinus caroliniana
B 8.9
1.1
iMissing
21 Cephalanthus occidentalis"
B 9.2
0.4
250
0.7 3
22 Ulmus americana
B 10.3
1.7
Missing
23 Persea palustris
B 10.6
1.4
Missing
24 Cephalanthus occidentalis'
B 10.8
0.6
230
0.6 3
25 Vaccinium corymbosurn
B 11.5
1.3
Missing
26 Quercus sp.
B 11.81
1.91
Missing
271 Myrica cerifera
B 11.4
2.0
iMissing
281 Ulmus americana
B 11.0
2.3
Missing
29 Persea palustris
B 13.0
3.5
Missing
30 Persea palustris
B 13.4
2.2
Missing
31 Vaccinium corymbosurn
B 13.1
1.9
Missing
32 Liriodendron tulipifera
B 12.9
1.2
Missing
33 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 14.81
1.51
Missing
34 Myrica cerifera
B 1 14.41
2.61
1 iMissing
351 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B 1 16.91
2.21
1 1
1 IMissing
B = bare root "Species identified differently in MY2 than during As -built and/or MY1 monitoring
C= containerized XS 8
i Strew
ltees.is
Y (0,
(0,0) I X (19.2, 0)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Volunteer Species Hei ht Class jcmj Tree line
Scientific Name 10-50 50-100 >100
Pinus 3
Salix nigra 4
Liriodendron tuli ifera 1
Site:
Bethpage
Page:
2
Monitoring Year:
MY3
Date:
9/25/2018
Area:
19.2 x 3.6
Veg Plot No.:
4
X-axis:
WIN
mmmmmm
mmmmm2mmmmmml
0
0
Fall
0 1
U.S. I
c
IS
I
.
1COD
MIMMI
MONOMER
BE
MEMEMMI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
• Carpinus caroliniona Cepholanthus occidentalis 0 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0 Liriodendron tulipifera
• Myrica cerifera 0 Quercus sp. 0 Vaccinium corymbosum 0 Missing
• Persea palustris 0 Nyssa biflora 0 Quercus laurifolia 0 Ulmus americana
30'N